Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 199 (GAU)

Mazibar Miah v. Union of India

2020-02-13

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2020
ORDER : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. BK Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border Areas, Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India. 2. On being referred by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Kamrup, FT Case No. 615 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner. 3. In course of the proceeding, the petitioner desired to exhibit certain documents like draft chitha, Jamabandi, voter lists of 1966, 1970, 2013 and 2016 in order to rely upon them to discharge the burden of proof that he is not a foreigner. In course of the proceeding, petitioner files an application under Order-16 Rule 14 read with Section-151 of the CPC which was registered as Petition No. 475, dated 01.11.2018, by which a prayer was made that summons be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta or to the Circle Officer, Barpeta or to the Lat Mandal of Kalgachia Circle to produce the original records like Draft chitha, Jamabandi, voter lists of 1966, 1970, 2013 and 2016 and to give evidence in that respect. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal by the order dated 03.01.2019. 4. Although we are not in agreement for the reasons stated in the said order, but on principle, we are of the view that neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Circle Officer or the Lat Mandal is required to be summoned in a proceeding in the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order 1964 for the purpose of giving evidence as regards the draft Chitha, Jamabandi or the voter lists of 1966, 1970, 2013 and 2016. In our view, all the aforesaid documents are public documents of which certified copy can be obtained by the proceedee. Section 77 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that a certified copy need not be proved if given in evidence. 5. Accordingly, we find no merit in this writ petition for continuing any further. 6. In our view, all the aforesaid documents are public documents of which certified copy can be obtained by the proceedee. Section 77 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that a certified copy need not be proved if given in evidence. 5. Accordingly, we find no merit in this writ petition for continuing any further. 6. It is provided that if the petitioner desires to rely upon any of the aforesaid documents, which are public documents, the petitioner may obtain certified copy of the same and produce it before the Tribunal. 7. However, it is provided that if the evidence of the aforesaid officers is required for any other purpose beyond the evidence as regards the existence of the public documents, the Tribunal would be at liberty to pass any order thereon. 8. Writ petition stands disposed as indicated above.